Primary links

Search SCS

Search this site:

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.

JDMS: Submission Review Process

The review process for manuscripts submitted to regular issues of JDMS is depicted in Figure 1. Authors submit manuscripts electronically to the ScholarOne Manuscript Central web site, and indicate whether the principal contribution of the work lies in the application or methodology section. The manuscript is then assigned to the corresponding Editor-In-Chief (EIC), but may be reassigned if both EICs agree it is more appropriate for the other to handle the submission. If the EIC determines the submission is suitable for review, it is assigned to an area editor. The area editor also checks that manuscript is suitable for review, and assuming it is, assigns referees and requests review of the submission. Based on these reviews, the area editor provides a recommendation to the EIC. The EIC makes a final decision regarding the submission, and notifies the author.

Before entering the reviewing process manuscripts are checked to assure they have sufficient merit to be sent out for refereeing. Manuscripts that are out of scope, or contain other obvious problems that preclude publication are rejected early in the process in order to avoid placing extra workloads on the referees.

The evaluation of your paper contains all information sent by the referees (normally three, minimally two) and concludes with putting your paper in one of the following categories:

Accepted. No revisions are necessary, and the paper is being accepted for publication.

Minor revisions requested. No additional refereeing will be necessary; the EIC and/or area editor will normally check that requested minor revisions have been satisfactorily completed. Manuscripts falling in this category are essentially ready for publication, only needing minor modifications such as fixing grammatical errors, clarifying details of the presentation, including additional references, etc. Any change that would require additional research by the authors (e.g., additional experiments) would normally be considered a major revision. Authors are requested to provide a revised version of manuscripts and a description of how each reviewer concern was addressed (or why the concern was not addressed) within three months of the request.

Major revisions requested. Extensive changes or additions in the reported research itself or its presentation are required. Such manuscripts will go through a second round of refereeing, normally with the same set of reviewers as the original submission. Submissions normally undergo at most one round of major revision. Authors are requested to provide a revised version of manuscripts and a description of how each reviewer concern was addressed ( or why the concern was not addressed) within six months of the request. Please note: after a major revision the paper should be acceptable or should require only minor revisions, otherwise it will be rejected.

Rejected. Submission of a revision will be treated as a new submission. Please note that the current acceptance rate in JDMS is below 25%. Therefore please carefully read the submission guidelines before submitting a paper to the journal.

We strive for a turn-around-time of 3-4 months. However, in some cases this can not be achieved due to delays in finding reviewers - so to speed up the reviewing process please suggest suitable reviewers for your paper.